Village Business District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal and replacement of existing siding, installation of new rubber roofing and the installation of three (3) new windows on the kitchen area at the rear of the home.

Eric Shonebarger, Shonebarger General LLC 477 Glen Eagles Drive, stated he would be replacing three kitchen windows, replacing the siding with six-inch exposure Hardie plank with four-inch window trim and a new rubber roof.

Planner Terry indicated the application was fairly simple and straight forward. The plans were well done and depicted all expected work.

Mr. Burriss asked the intended color of the corner boards. Mr. Shonebarger indicated the corner boards would likely be the siding color (charcoal gray) with the window trim remaining white.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-42:

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District? Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the application was consistent with other renovations approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the request was consistent with other uses already in this district and continued to maintain the historical character of the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the improvements to the house improve the vitality of the house and therefore increase the vitality of the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the new roof and windows help to preserve the house for future generations. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-42 as submitted. Second by Mr. Hawk.

Suburban Residential District - B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of porch railing and installation of wooden lattice below the front porch.

Charles Hartman, 135 West Maple Street, stated he wanted to remove the porch railing and replace the existing lattice work. He indicated that he had spoken with the Licking County Building Department regarding the requirements for a railing. A railing was not needed on a porch less than thirty inches in height from ground level. He also intended to replace the lattice work at the base of the porch.

Planner Terry indicated the application was complete and the proposed changes would improve the appearance of the house.

Mr. Mitchell indicated it was not within Planning Commission’s authority to enforce building code regulations, just to review design.

Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant was planning to remove the other railing along the side of the porch. Mr. Hartman indicated he had considered such, but the height was thirty-four inches and would require a railing. However, he indicated that he had thought about building up the earth by four inches in this area so he would be able to remove the railing. Mr. Mitchell indicated that the GPC should grant an approval to remove the railing and allow the applicant to decide whether or not to remove the railing later.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-43:

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District? Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the application was consistent with other renovations approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the request was consistent with other uses already in this district and restored the historic character of the house thus maintaining the historical character of the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the improvements to the house improve the vitality of the house and therefore increase the vitality of the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the restoration to a more appropriate appearance helps to preserve the house for future generations. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-43 as submitted with the provisiom that the applicant can remove all railings. Second by Mr. Hawk.

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, stated that he wanted to replace all of the windows in the home. He would be installing all new Jeld-Wen, simulated divided light windows. The new windows will closely resemble the old windows. The second floor window will be a little larger to allow for egress.

Mr. Hawk asked if the windows would be six over six. Mr. Klingler indicated in the affirmative.

Ms. Hoyt asked if the basement windows would be different. Mr. Klingler indicated the basement windows would have the same configuration.

Mr. Burriss asked if the windows would have screens. Mr. Klingler indicated he preferred the look of the windows without screens. If he decided he needed a screen, he would use non-permanent screens.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-44:

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District? Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the application is consistent with other renovations approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the request is consistent with other uses already in this district and upgrading the windows restores the home’s historic look and maintains the historical character of the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the improvements to the house will continue to increase the vitality of the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded yes.

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2013-44 as presented. Second by Mr. Hawk.

Suburban Residential District - B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) as it is more than 20% of the gross livable area. The request is for architectural review and approval of an addition to the 1910 Bungalow home inclusive of a new kitchen, mud hall, garage and master suite.

Todd Parker, 508 West College Street, stated that he would be updating and improving the home to accommodate room for his family. He would also be adding an addition that would include a kitchen, mud room entrance and a two-car garage with a master suite above. He indicated that the addition would be buried into the hillside. The house would be painted uniformly using a gray palate keeping the existing wood shingles. A Hardie beveled siding would be used with all new windows and smooth Hardie panel trim. The outside kitchen wall would be clad in synthetic stone as well as the outdoor kitchen. There would be minimal lighting. The roof would be replaced on the entire house, removing the existing skylights. A new asphalt driveway would be installed using some concrete pavers.

Planner Terry indicated because the proposed addition was more than twenty percent of the existing structure, it required architectural review approval instead of just administrative approval. The application met all of the set back and lot requirements. It met all height regulations. The detached garage would not be considered under this application review, as it was a detached structure not a part of the addition.

Kathleen Triveri, 220 Thresher Street, expressed concern about the clear-cutting of trees and the hillside. The lot was not a flat lot and needed the trees to stabilize the hillside. She felt the clear cutting would worsen the existing water run-off problem. She was also concerned about the visibility of the driveway from her home. It would no longer be a hidden drive.

Virginia Cope, 510 West College Street, expressed concern about the modern character of the design. It was not aesthetically appropriate to the rest of the neighborhood. She also expressed concern about the future stability of the hill, erosion issues and how water run-off would impact her lot. She also commented about a new pin installed four feet into her yard. Was that pin supposed to be a new lot marker as it was not in the location of the previous two survey pins. She was concerned that this new pin marked a new property boundary border, which would mean the set back allowances would be incorrect. She also expressed concern about the reduction and blockage of her current view shed with the proposed brick wall. She felt additionally that the house was too big for the neighborhood.

Planner Terry responded that the Village had no code requirements that prevent a resident from removing trees from private property. The applicant was in contact with Village staff regarding the potential for stormwater run-off and the applicant would be responsible for preventing run-off and maintaining current storm water drainage. Any problems involving survey results would be a civil issue that would need to be resolved between the two parties. The Planning Commission would be responsible for reviewing massing, scale and design issues involving the proposed addition.

Todd Parker, 508 West College Street, indicated that he was in contact with the Village Service Director about removing trees in the Village right-of-way that were currently dead. Most of the other trees removed from his property were dead or hollow in the middle. Mr. Parker also indicated that he would have Smart Survey come back out to the lot and review and/or re-mark the property line. The intent of the retaining wall in the plan was to maintain the embankment and to prevent erosion. The wall would be attractively landscaped and should not be an obstruction.

Mr. Mitchell expressed concern about setback issues after the discussion of property pin placement. Planner Terry indicated that a survey was completed by the applicant by a registered survey company indicating all property lines. There was not an issue with setbacks. Should an issue be discovered, the applicant would need a variance from the BZBA.

Ms. Hoyt asked Mrs. Cope if she had a survey. Mrs. Cope indicated that she did have her original survey from 2002 and another from 2006. Mr. Hoyt commented that the applicant’s design did not support the architectural standards for the historic character of the house or the area. The design plan was too modern. She was also concerned about the 3,800 square foot size as it was larger than others in the area. Planner Terry indicated that it was a large addition, but there was another large addition in process on West Broadway to the Galano residence.

Mr. Hawk asked the size of the stationary windows. Mr. Parker indicated three foot by six foot. Mr. Hawk asked the difference in size of the existing house and the house with the addition. Planner Terry indicated the current house was 2,082 square feet and the addition would be 2,652 more square feet. The detached garage footprint was 544 square feet.

Mr. Ryan reiterated that if not for the more that twenty percent increase, this application would not be before the Planning Commission. Planner Terry affirmed his comment.

Mr. Parker indicated that he had reviewed the Village’s Code regarding massing. He indicated that by cutting into the hill he hoped to reduce the massing impact and make the project more environmentally sensitive. He indicated that he elected to leave the driveway as currently designed.

Mr. Burriss asked if there would be overhangs, gutters and downspouts and if the large glass areas were functional windows or just glass. Mr. Parker indicated that the overhangs would be minimal, the gutters and downspouts would be black and the windows would be functional casement windows. Mr. Burriss indicated that he had concerns about the scale of the addition, but burying the addition would help lessen the impact. Mr. Burriss discussed the various schools of thought regarding whether additions should mimic the existing architecture or be different to denote the addition. Mr. Parker indicated that by copying the siding shingles on the new addition, it would help maintain a consistent feel. Mr. Burriss commented that the plan was an elegant solution to a design issue and that by making the addition different from the existing house, the plan was following the design aesthetics proposed by the National Historic Trust.

Mr. Mitchell indicated that he was concerned about the tall, skinny detached garage and the total massing. Planner Terry indicated that the garage could not be considered as is was not part of the review application.

Councilmember Johnson asked if the north evaluation of the retaining wall changed or maintained the same height. Would there be shrubbery or landscaping? Additionally, the addition being added was twelve feet east of the existing corner.

Mr. Ryan commented that Mr. Parker would be responsible for containing any run-off during the construction and would need to gain permission for tree removal within the right-of-way, which he would be doing during his meeting with Service Director Hopkins. Mr. Parker will check the survey information and pin placement. The height and massing issues would be addressed by this Commission as part of the architectural design review.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-48:

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District? Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the application is consistent with the other Hoffman house renovation, other renovations in the district as well as other new homes. The property has a large lot size and maintains the bungalow look. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Hawk and Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Burriss. Ms. Hoyt stated FALSE.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the diverse architectural elements of the new addition upgrade an older structure while maintaining the existing structure, providing a new, interesting and unique character in the district. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Hawk and Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Burriss. Ms. Hoyt stated FALSE.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the improvements to the house with the contrasting styles would enhance the vitality of the District. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Hawk, Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Burriss.

c) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Burriss indicated TRUE by maintaining the original home and improving the property with the addition it will make improvements for future generations. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Hawk, Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Burriss.

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-48 as proposed. Second by Mr. Mitchell.

Section 1189, regarding the sign code, changes the processes for securing a sign variance moving the approval process from the Planning Commission to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, adding a fee to the process and modifying the review of signs from a Commission review to an administrative review. Planner Terry indicated that if a sign met all criteria, an administrative approval could be given with any variance requests going to the BZBA. After discussion during the previous meeting, issues involving sidewalk/sandwich board signs were pulled from the update.

The Commission discussed the issues involving the changes to the sign portion of the Code. The GPC was in agreement that the most appropriate place for sign variance reviews was with the BZBA. Additional discussion about the merits of taking sign design approval away from the Commission was reviewed.

Mr. Mitchell moved to recommend the Code changes as presented with the following modifications: a) the GPC will continue to review all sign design of signs that meet all criteria; b) the administration of variances for signs be a responsibility of the BZBA. Second by Mr. Hawk.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-42 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-42. Second by Mr. Hawk.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-43 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-43. Second by Mr. Hawk.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-44 as submitted by the applicant.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-48 as submitted by the applicant.